Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
If you look at AA Chapter 13 in ACCA’s Study Hub – in section 3 there is an Example 3, two activities and an Exhibit 1
The “direction” of 2 is from goods movement (out) to a sales invoice, which from the sales listing will be recorded in the books. From “source” to “inclusion in the FS” is the direction of testing for the completeness assertion (if a sales invoice were to be missing, revenue in the FS would be incomplete).
The “direction” of 3 is the opposite. Recorded revenue asserts that sales occurred – tracing “back” to source confirms that goods were, in fact, despatched.
Short answer – would YOU pay for faulty goods that you had returned to a supplier?
The point is that according to the audit client’s records, there is no liability. To confirm the balance is to confirm that there is no liability because it doesn’t exist (not that there is no liability because it’s been paid – do you see the distinction?)
@Haimbodi what Q are you looking for? It may be that an updated version exists in BPP, Kaplan or ACCA materials. But in its original form ot will not be exam style or standard or technically uptodate
Have you looked at our notes? An auditor’s primary responsibility is to give a written opinion on the financial statements – an internal auditor might have a remit to initiate an investigation – but not the external auditor. When any non-compliance is discovered, the first question to consider is “does that have any implications for the financial statements?” (and hence for the audit opinion, if there is material misstatement). So, for example, a company discharges toxic waste into a river in contravention of environmental law – it could be liable to clean-up costs, penalties/fines, etc – if failing to PROVIDE for such costs gives rise to material misstatement, the auditor would qualify the opinion. However, before getting to that point, the auditor would discuss with management/TCWG the need to make a provision. It isn’t the auditor’s place to report contravention to the environmental authorities – some argue it’s ok “in the public interest” but that’s pretty weak in the real world nowadays. (It’s unlikely the auditor would be the first/only person to detect the non-compliance – let someone else be the whistle-blower!)
Please ask on the ask the pm tutor forum – this is just a general forum post.
Thank you for your post @paula87 – the link has been updated.
An organisation may have an internal audit function – but no audit committee – or an audit committee but no internal audit (i.e. it may have one but not the other).
Where a company has both – e.g. in compliance with the UK Corporate Governance Code, internal audit must report independently to the Audit Committee, ideally via the Chief Audit Executive (CAE) having a direct, unrestricted line to the chair of the audit committee.
This does NOT mean that internal audit does not report to management/the BoD – it is quite likely that it will report findings to mgt/BoD and make recommendations for improvements. It may also report the most significant of these matters – and mgt/BoD response to recommendations – to the audit committee.
Please use the TX forum https://opentuition.com/forum/acca-forums/acca-tx-taxation-forums/
@Samuel6242961 – welcome to our forums, but I do not understand what you are asking.
If you are looking for “test your knowledge” type Qs at the end of each chapter of study, we have “Practice Questions” – for example, here is for PM https://opentuition.com/acca/pm/acca-performance-management-pm-practice-questions
ACCA has “Quizzes” for each chapter in the Study Hub https://www.accaglobal.com/uk/en/student/your-study-options/studyhub.html
I recommend you take a look at Activity 4 Inherent Risk Factors in AA Chapter 8 Identifying and Assessing Risk in ACCA’s Study Hub – there are a list of 10 factors for you to decide whether they should be evaluated at the financial statement level or assertion level.
As per our notes (https://opentuition.com/acca/aa/acca-audit-assurance-aa-notes page 53)
Risks must be assessed at two levels to provide a basis for designing further audit procedures:
(1) The financial statement level (i.e. relating to the financial statements AS A WHOLE, for example,
the risk of management override of internal control).
(2) The assertion level (i.e. relating to classes of transactions, account balances and disclosures).These two levels demand different “auditor’s responses [to the risk of material misstatement]” as set out on page 59:
5.1. Financial statement level
Risks at the financial statement level are those that relate to the financial statements as a whole and potentially affect many assertions. For example, the risks arising from fraud or a deficient control environment or significant doubts about going concern. The auditor’s response to such risks may include:
? Assigning more experienced audit staff
? Designing audit procedures that are less predictable
? Exercising greater supervision over audit work.
5.2. Assertion level
At the assertion level, essentially any single figure which appears in the financial statements is making assertions. For example, it is saying something about its accuracy, its measurement, completeness and occurrence (of a transaction) or existence (of an asset or liability).
At the assertion level, the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures must be designed to respond to the assessed risks (ISA 330). For example, if you are worried about receivables valuation you have to do a lot more work verifying that receivables are recoverable. It may be possible to wait for several months after the year end to see which customers actually pay. Assertions are described in more detail in Chapter 10.My warmest congratulations! I had no doubt whatsoever that you would pass, as you put in the effort to understand the subject matter. (It is very frustrating when students want only to “learn” answers.)
You have a solid foundation for AAA (soon to be SAA), perhaps I will see you again for that. I do hope so.
An audit committee is comprised of INDEPENDENT NON-executive directors. There roles in corporate governance are independent of the executive directors/board responsible for management. (For more detail not examinable in AA see https://www.accaglobal.com/gb/en/student/exam-support-resources/professional-exams-study-resources/strategic-business-leader/technical-articles/independence-as-a-concept-in-corporate-governance.html.)
I don’t know what you mean “looked upon” – anyone can read an auditor’s report – but it doesn’t give them a say in the work of the independent auditor.
Here are some additional sources of Q practice that shouldn’t confuse and have fully justified answers (I hope! If not you can ask me on this forum!)
https://opentuition.com/acca/aa/aa-practice-questions You shouldn’t find these too demanding and you will see some different OT Q types (not just multiple choice and “which two” multiple response). I know the current real exam format does not have “standalone” OTs – but sometimes Qs within an OT case are effectively standalone – and these are quite good for clarifying technical understanding. Alternatively, if you don’t want to plough through these by topic, you can make your self a revision test of Qs drawn randomly from our Q bank: https://opentuition.com/acca/aa/acca-aa-revision-test
There are two sets of OT-case Qs here – each set has 3 scenario each with 5 Qs
https://opentuition.com/acca/aa/aa-case-questions-set-1
https://opentuition.com/acca/aa/aa-case-questions-set-2The scenarios of these are briefer than the real exam but still test technically important points and, again, include different Q types.
And there’s another set of 3 scenarios with 5 Qs here https://opentuition.com/acca/aa/acca-aa-revision-mock-exam
That is so considerate of you – but rest assured it doesn’t make be uncomfortable 🙂 My concern is that I do not want to mislead or confuse you in your studies by contradicting something you are reading that I don’t have.
I now have a copy of a Kaplan Kit so I can see where there are gaps in the answer justifications – e.g. for this Q there is no explanation why the “expert” option is incorrect.
I do have another concern – that the wording of the Qs you have copied is not as “polished” as the wording in the 2026-27 edition (e.g. the standard start to a Q with dates is always “It is 1 July 20X5.”).
So if you have an old edition you must not use it for any questions on auditors’ reports and opinions or “going concern” as ISA 570 (Revised 2024) is the examinable document.
If you look at the members forum you will see a lot of posts about PER https://opentuition.com/forum/qualified-members-forum
If you can’t find an answer there or here https://www.accaglobal.com/gb/en/help/student-faqs-practical-experience-requirements.html use the contact us tool: https://forms.accaglobal.com/contact-us
Follow the prompts – after the 3rd or 4th selection you can scroll down an information pop-up to
“Do you need to send us a message?” Select YesI’ve only read your first para and my immediate thought is that “ask an expert” is invariably an incorrect answer/distractor because it’s a “cop out”. An auditor MUST be able to identify risks of material misstatement in financial statements without deferring to somone else!
Now to the Q – again, at a glance, I see this is NOT a past OT-case Q (where are you getting these from? do they not have answer justifications?)
You say option 3 is given as the correct answer – “1 and 3 only” – since “2” is a distractor, I agree with the given answer.
The assessed risk for receivable arises from “The bonus was linked to increasing the number of customers signing 24-month mobile contracts.” The risk usually associated with incentivising sales staff to make more sales is that less attention is paid to credit risk – if customers are not sufficiently credit worthy, there is a risk that receivables may be overstated. All the suggested responses other than “extend cut-off testing” are relevant to this risk.
The assess risk for inventory arises from “Inventory 160,000 – 125,000” – if you’re selling your stock like hot cakes, you’d expect inventory holding to fall. So the assessed risk is inventory overstatement.
First let me say that for lots of reasons I can see this is NOT a real past OT case question. Presumably you have an answer justification, so what is it about that justification that is not clear?
The Q ask which of the following is NOT a suitable response. “Extend cut-off testing” is a suitable response to the risk that that transactions (in this case sales) may be recorded in the incorrect accounting period.
I see nothing in the narrative that identifies cut-off as a risk – so even without looking at the other options, extending cut-off cannot be a response to an ASSESSED risk.
It is not necessary for every single staff member in a firm to be a member of a supervisory body. However, simply having the “owner” as a member is likely insufficient, as the audit regulations require specifically qualified individuals to be responsible for the audit work.
I think B is the best of the available answers but this is not a past exam Q, so you shouldn’t worry about it. To be sure you are looking at real exam style and standard Qs & As, I recommend you practice Qs in the CBE platform and ACCA mis-named “study” hub – as it includes good revision question practice. If using a publisher’s “kit”, past exam “OT Case” Qs should be no older than 2018 – if earlier they will be adapted and similarly not true exam style and standard.